Something we all should see

[jono]

CC I think you misinterpreted my post

* the estimated numbers of people involved are way off. Please make a breakdown of where all of these are coming from and why they were 'need to know'


http://youtube.com/watch?v=HG4TzCtljHQ
watch from 1:23

[aditya]

[ QUOTE ]

Ah, I see it now. Some 10000 people (an arbitrary number, but my guess its a low estimate anyway) involved in a great conspiracy where even the slighest bit of hard evidence would be worth millions in the least.

So, somewhere and somehow the diehard conspiracy fanatics turn out to be the humans with the GREATEST faith in human honesty. You're basically claiming thousands of dishonest unscrupulous people can keep this secret.

So dear conspiracy theorists, I do not share this blind faith in your fellow man. You are severely deluded if you think you can find enough trustworthy people to contain a conspiracy of this magnitude.

[/ QUOTE ]

10000 is a big ass number dude. You don't need every single person in the thing. If only the important people know about it, then that's enough. They are enough to carry it out.

[Hiiiiiiii]

Good stuff. That's why I hate everyone.

[furyshade]

how legit is the income tax being unenforcable thing?

[corsakh]

[ QUOTE ]
how legit is the income tax being unenforcable thing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well apparently not very, look at Al Capone who was detained for tax avoidance. Then again, we never really know the truth, its all speculations.

[Artie746]

A+

[yi style]

pretty silly

[twoblacknines]

ok wtf...

can anyone refute some of these claims, especially wrt 9/11...and if the "men behind the curtains" are so powerful that they were responsible for 9/11, etc, then how would they even let this "documentary" be made and easily accesible to the point where I can click a link in a public forum and reveal all the governments secrets...

Anyways, worth a watch, mainly part 2, though I can't help but think if all the claims are true then something would have came out about all this...of course people are still claiming we never landed on the moon and we laugh at them as crazy but maybe they got it right.

And rambling now, but it reminds me of the time some friends and I took lsd and had the thought that the "crazy" people we lock away into institutions are in reality the only sane ones...

[That Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
That Fish,

Sorry but the numbers you typed are wrong. Please link your sources next time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh really?
Shigley and Mitchel, Mechanical Engineering Design, 4th edition, pg 179, fig 4-9. published by Mcgraw Hill Copyright 1983..

I'll quote:

"...the figure shows typical characteristics. Note that there is only a small change in tensile strength until a critical temperature is reached, then it falls off rapidly. However, too many engineers remember this fact and forget that the yield strength continually decreases with temperature increase. For example, the material would have a yield strength of about 70% of room-temperature yield at 500F.."

At 1000F it's about half, maybe less than that at room temperature (50 ksi), at 1200 it drops to 25ksi.

There is a reason why they spray fireproofing on steel beams, and the planes blew a bunch of it off, knocked out other beams and added huge amounts of heat...

[BuddyQ]

Most of the claims in the video are contrary to the facts and to basic science (example below). But conspiracy nuts don't care about facts and science, so please disregard this post, sorry.

Popular Mechanics:

"Melted" Steel
Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=1